Dalin v. Dalin
North Dakota Supreme Court
512 N.W.2d 685 (1994)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Spouses Roland Dalin (plaintiff) and Patricia Dalin (defendant) had one child, a daughter. When the spouses divorced, the trial court awarded Ronald and Patricia roughly equal physical custody of the child, who was then approximately two years old. Less than a year later, Roland filed a petition seeking sole custody. At the hearing, Roland stated that he had support from his mother and that she helped him perform child-rearing tasks he was uncertain about, such as potty training. When questioning Roland’s mother, the trial judge asked whether she expected that she would be the one to teach the daughter things best taught by a woman if Roland were to receive primary custody. She said yes. The trial judge ultimately concluded that both Roland and Patricia cared deeply for the daughter and were fit for custody but that it was in the daughter’s best interests to award Patricia custody from August to June each year and Roland custody for the summers. The court expressed concern that awarding Roland primary custody would be detrimental because Roland’s deep disapproval of Patricia’s parenting style might taint the daughter’s future relationship with Patricia. Roland appealed, arguing that the trial judge’s decision was based on improper gender bias, which was evinced by the judge’s questions to his mother.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Levine, J.)
Dissent (Sandstrom, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
